Purpose of the universe

  • Thread starter Entity
  • Start date
  • #101
The purpose of the Universe is to experience itself subjectively, as one cohesive collective consciousness, as all aspects of material reality are inextricably, interconnected.

The notion that a non-sentient Universe is encoded towards a dynamic evolution of sentience, consciousness and awareness, is mysteriously intriguing and begs the question, "Is the Universe a conscious whole, or does it only exist consciously through subjective periphrial extensions of itself?"

Does the Universe have a memory?

Granted, we have to seperate and classify this 'inextricably, interconnected whole,' however, it is for the purpose of clarity.
 
  • #102
380
0
The purpose of the Universe is to experience itself [...]
How do you reach this conclusion? Why not "to wonder why it exists" instead? Why not "to perpetuate itself" instead? What is it about experiencing oneself that makes it the purpose of all there is?
 
  • #103
'Wondering why it exists', 'perpetuating itself', etc. are all experiences. The word "it" that you used, seems to yield an element of subjectivity as well. I fail to understand the complication but perhaps my perception is distorted.

-cP
 
Last edited:
  • #104
380
0
I ask how you conclude that the purpose of the universe is to experience itself.
 
  • #105
I ask how you conclude that the purpose of the universe is to experience itself.
To clarify, when I use the word 'consciousness,' I am referring to 'phenomenal consciousness' or 'experience,' which, currently, we can treat intuitively. If we require an operational definition to continue forward, that would require an application of logic, which I would need to construct.

I concluded this because I am a conscious, sentient being and I possess self-awareness, sapience, cognition, free-thought, logic and reasoning. I am an emergent, macroscopic physical system, constructed and engineered through the contingent elements of the Universe, thus making me, inextricably, interconnected with all of material reality.

You can not seperate yourself from the nature, you are the nature. If the Universe is non-sentient, then I can conclude that it is at the very least, experiencing itself subjectively through me, if you want to posit solipsism. However, I tend to believe that while we do subjectively construct our own cognitive models and maps of the Universe and of reality, there still exists an objective source from which we extrapolate this experience. With this in mind, assuming that every individual exists as a real entity, then the Universe as a whole, would be experiencing itself subjectively through each individual.

This is the most conservative approach that I can think of, even if it is anthropocentric. One could conclude that all aspects of material reality, constitute a subjective experience for the Universe as a whole, however, that requires an extra assumption that experience in general does not correspond necessarily to our subjective notion of experience.

If the Universe itself as a whole, is non-sentient and unconscious and we posit the notion of a material consciousness (i.e. the physical architecture and organization of the brain generates consciousness), then we can conclude that these same laws would apply to the macroscopic Universe (i.e. it organizes in a fashion that consitutes experience).

If the Universe itself as a whole, is indeed sentient and conscious, then we can conclude that our conscious experiences are derived from this collective source.

This is pure conjecture without the application of rigorous logic, so it is an informal argument.
 
Last edited:
  • #107
I agree. :approve:
Is that your response? It is conjecture because it is unfalsifiable, as are most abstract notions of reality. I fail to see how it being conjecture, in anyway detracts from the argument.

You can not posit any conditions for the purpose of the Universe, that are directly falsifiable! What is your argument? You have asked me questions, which I answered and then you quoted my own comment about my conjecture and used that to conclude it was invalid.

Is this your method of discussion?
 
  • #108
380
0
There is nothing wrong here. You make some claim. I ask to see your proof of what you claim. You yourself conclude that your claim is pure conjecture. I agree that it is. You're upset?
 
  • #109
There is nothing wrong here. You make some claim. I ask to see your proof of what you claim. You yourself conclude that your claim is pure conjecture. I agree that it is. You're upset?
Upset? No, dood, im laughing. It's a discussion on a board homie and I am at work currently. I gave you my proof, now respond to it.

There is plenty there for you to go through and pick apart. You have yet to provide a single contention in this discussion. I wrote the thing in like five minutes, I don't understand what your requirements are, lol.

SILLY INTERNET KIDS!!!! (again, I am kidding incase the intonation gets lost in translation from oral to text).
 
Last edited:
  • #110
I'm shocked.... Since this is exactly what I needed to understand a number of phenomenas... Please tell me some more on that, How did you come up with that? whats the logic behind this statement of yours?

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply. :)
That fetal reflection seems to have worked out a treat!
PS: Any views on substituting "Function" for "Purpose"?



----

the universe actually has two purposes, not one. after 19 years of formulating a hypothesis, and nine months of quiet fetal reflection, I have come to the following conclusion:

purpose A of the universe must both precede and superimpose purpose B.
purpose B must superimpose, but under no circumstances precede purpose A.

therefore:

purpose A of the universe is for purpose B to be achieved.

purpose B of the universe is to exist until purpose A is achieved.

hope that clarifies everything. now sleep sound everyone.
thank you for your support of my emerging theory... I actually have incredible news!

I was looking through the numbers last night (sorry mubashirmansoor, I would post the equations but just the first equation is around 10 pages long! ... besides, I feel the mathematical complexity and philosophical implications would be beyond anyone here at PF anyway). anyway, looking through the numbers I realized something. how did I not see it before? I don't know... it turns out there is a third kind of purpose for the universe, I have labeled it purpose A1, as it does not seem to fit into the same category of purposes A and B.

the fascinating thing about purpose A1, is that it is to be achieved once purpose B has been achieved, yet it cannot exist once purpose A has been achieved!

this seeming paradox had me most perplexed! after all, wouldn't this imply that the purposes of the universe cancel each other out?

indeed, to the unsophisticated mind. but upon further contemplation I realized the following principle: the three purposes of the universe do not cancel each other out; instead, purpose A1 interacts with purposes A and B in a way that perpetually forces them into different states... how can I describe this better without going into overly-complex concepts... imagine these three purposes of the universe as a line, a string of sorts. with my discovery of purpose A1, the three interconnected and superimposed purposes of the universe (this string) is constantly in motion... "vibrating," for lack of a better word!

why three purposes to the universe? why are they superimposed in this manner? ... I am yet to resolve this issue. but at least I have solved, at last, this most relevant of questions: what is the purpose of the universe? . ending once and for all the need for speculation.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Purpose of the universe

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
12K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
11K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
139
Views
22K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
Top